it's nothing exotic, and it didn't *require* extension. it was just the often-mentioned desire to have another logging level - TRACE, in our case. i know there are other ways to get what we wanted, but this was the cleanest and simplest.
i maintain that if the framework supports it and the distribution provides examples of how to do it, the capability should have been included in the backwards-compatibility pledge :-( Shapira, Yoav wrote: > Hi Doug, > I am curious to know the use case that required you to extend Category, > CategoryFactory, and Priority. Could you please describe the > requirement and your solutions? Perhaps your work could become part of > the log4j contribs codebase? Thanks, > > Yoav Shapira > Millennium ChemInformatics > > > >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Doug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 4:34 PM >>Subject: log4j 1.2 not fully compatible with 1.1 >> >> >> >>>i just wanted to vent my frustration at my realization >>>that backwards compatibility was not maintained for >>>users who have implemented custom >>>Category/CategoryFactory/Priority classes, which we >>>did. >>> >>>i realize this is a non-recommended practice, but it >>>made good sense in our case. the framework supported >>>it, and still does, but in an incompatible fashion. >>>this is forcing us to either change all of our code or >>>stay at the 1.1 level (which has known bugs in it like >>>for RollingFileAppender). sigh. >>> >>>- doug >>> >>>__________________________________________________ >>>Do You Yahoo!? >>>HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs >>>http://www.hotjobs.com >> > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
